Said-Bookisms and why I'll keep using them

[sekiharatae]

I've read a lot recently on how 'Said-Bookisms' -- those other words we use in place of 'said' as dialogue tags -- are bad.  'Don't do it,' says everyone from TV Tropes to Stephen King.  The word 'said' is described as virtually invisible and touted for getting the job done right.  Use it and it alone.

Wikipedia, for instance, indicates that the tags in this little snippet get in the reader's way:

"Hello," he croaked nervously, "my name's Horace. What's yours?" he asked with as much aplomb as he could muster.

The second one bothers me (not for content, but because it makes the sentence unwieldy) but the first one is fine in all respects.  Those few words have allowed me to infer that Horace's voice breaks when he's nervous.    Replacing 'he croaked nervously' with 'he said' would detract from what the writer was trying to convey.  How else would one indicate that the speaker was having such an issue?  As a reader, I'd much rather be told that a word or phrase is stuttered or broken than have it typed that way!  Especially since there's nothing about "'He-llo', he said" to indicate the speaker isn't breaking the word flirtatiously.

As such, I think this is at best a much oversimplified rule. (And at worst it's a crap one.)  Which is made doubly apparent when every list of examples (of what not to do) includes things that are wrong for reasons other than the said-bookism.  If the word used isn't a way in which something can be said, for instance, it's wrong because it's not physically possible.  You can't smile a sentence or dance a sentence or blink a sentence; using these as dialogue tags isn't wrong because they're not the word 'said', they're wrong because they aren't forms of speech. 

Of course, it's far easier to simply say don't than to explain when and how and why it would be acceptable.  Or unacceptable.  And when people do try to explain they give stupid examples -- seriously, one site stated that using 'he whispered' in a love/sex scene would jar the reader out of the mood.  Really?  Because -- for whatever reason -- most people seem to think that sex-talk is something that should be done at lowered volume.  Having the hero simply say things during sex paints an entirely different picture than having him whisper.  It tells me he's probably more confident, for one thing; and there's probably no-one around to overhear, for another. 

One site advised that the word 'snarled' should never be used for dialogue, as it conjures up alpha male jerks.  Obviously, it's ridiculous to think the speaker could just be furiously angry and conveying that with his tone.  Similarly, 'hissed' is inappropriate if the words spoken don't have sibilant consonants.  Because 'hissed' doesn't describe a venomous whisper at all.  

Words.  Have.  Meaning.  Even the word 'said' has meaning.  It's the lowest common denominator of dialogue tags, but that doesn't make it invisible.  For it to be invisible, every word ever spoken would have to uttered in monotone.  For anyone capable of imagining different levels of inflection, it's not invisible.  It's merely... the default.

Consider a scene in which a father is telling a child to stop doing something.  There are lots of ways he could go about it, each conveying something slightly different about how he feels.  Such as:

"Stop," he said. -- A very mild rebuke.
"Stop!" he said. -- A little firmer, a little more demanding. 
"Stop!" he barked. -- Very sharp and precise and abrupt.  Dad is giving an order, one he wants obeyed right now. 
"Stop!" he yelled. -- Sharp, but strident.  Dad is very possibly alarmed.

Depending on what the child is doing -- say, driving his matchbox car on the wall vice throwing it at the window -- a different tag may be more appropriate.  Sure, you could be more explicit --  "Stop!" he said, jumping up in alarm.  -- but how many of us really think Dad just said stop if he was actually moved to alarm?

Said-bookisms can also (as mentioned above) specify how something is said in terms of dialect and enunciation without having to sound it out.  Such as:  "I can't sleep!" the little girl wailed.  (Instead of "I can't sleeeeeeep!" the little girl said.) To me, the first is far easier to read than the second.

So.  My rule of thumb would be that all of your word choices are important, and that you should therefore only use those that say exactly what you mean, and that contribute something to the story that would be lost without them.  If that requires using a said-bookism, so be it... but by the same token, don't use extraneous tags that add nothing.

I must admit that the entire concept is actually kind of mind-boggling to me. Especially since I'm apparently branding myself as an amateur with my approach.  And yet... I can't help but think that -- perhaps -- this minimalistic approach is what has reading comprehension declining daily.  If words aren't chosen because of what they convey but because they can be ignored... well, no wonder people don't understand what they're reading.

Comments

[sekiharatae.livejournal.com]

Hello there. I don't know if you'll read this, as you won't be notified I've posted a response. On the off chance that you will, however, I thought I'd post it.

I thank you for your two cents, but I still disagree with you and your professor. Your example, if you'll excuse the pun, does not carry the same bite as saying the phrase was barked. As a reader, nothing throws me out of the writing faster than stumbling across the word 'said' to describe a phrase that -- given the surrounding action and emotions -- should have been yelled or screamed or some such. Was the speaker really a body of calm in the middle of the argument? Or was the writer slavishly adhereing to the rules against said bookisms? That the word 'said' is universally invisible is a huge lie; it's only invisible if it's appropriate to the surrounding text. Otherwise, it's every bit as disruptive as having someone yell in the middle of a unexciting low-key exchange.

Which underlines what I said before: word choices matter. Using a said bookism to show off that you know a fancy synonym for 'mumble' is not appropriate. Neither is using the word 'said' in the middle of a heated argument where voices are raised -- not unless you really mean that the character reigned himself in at that point. In short, what words you use in your language tags are just as important as the words you use to describe anything else, and they should be chosen carefully, because they mean exactly what you need them to mean. As such, I don't think said bookisms are evil, or should be singled out as the kiss of death for a story, but I also don't think they should be the only tool a writer has. Showing is certainly better than telling; but sometimes the only way to convey what you want to convey is to tell it.

Also, this tendancy not to use said bookisms is a recent thing; when I took creative writing in college twenty years ago it was a non-issue. Twenty years ago, however, I also didn't find books for sale -- critically acclaimed ones -- containing sentences like the one I posted a poll about recently. As such, I honestly, truly, think reading comprehension has evaporated. It's becoming a lost art. What sells is a lot of flash that dazzles the reader so the fact that it means nothing goes unnoticed; or a dumbed down, simplistic writing style that requires little thought to understand. On Amazon, indie authors argue that editing is worthless because most people don't notice errors in tense, sentence construction, spelling, etc. We need to fix that problem in readers (well, ideally in the authors, too; but if readers read better, the authors would have to step up), but it's far easier to castigate a writer for daring to make use of the language than to teach someone how to read well.

That also goes for Elmore Leonard's war against adverbs. Really? An entire word form should be avoided at all costs?